prev
next
Supreme Court health care ruling: Where states stand
A protester holds an American flag during a demonstration in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, on June 28, 2012 in Washington, DC. / Getty Images/Mark Wilson
(AP) Here is a look at where each of the 50 states stand on implementing President Barack Obama's federal health care overhaul, which the Supreme Court ruled Thursday can go forward with its aim of covering more than 30 million uninsured Americans.
Complete Coverage: Health Care
Supreme Court upholds health care mandate
Read the Supreme Court's full decision
Alabama
Number of uninsured: 720,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 15.4 percent.
Where the state stands: Republican Gov. Robert Bentley, a physician, created a commission in 2011 to recommend a plan for a health insurance exchange, but he successfully opposed efforts by some legislators to enact one in May. Critics said the bill would have limited the exchange to companies operating statewide, which is one at this point. Bentley said it was premature to act before the Supreme Court ruled.
—-
Alaska
Number of unisured: 125,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 18 percent.
Where the state stands: Alaska, which is among the states that sued over the constitutionality of the federal health care law, has yet to implement a health care exchange. The health department has hired a consultant to help design one, and that report is expected soon.
—-
Arizona
Number of uninsured: 1.28 million state residents not covered, or about 19 percent
Where the state stands: Arizona is among the states challenging the constitutionality of the health care overhaul. The lawsuit covers about 22,000 people statewide, including some 14,000 people in the Phoenix area. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer's administration is moving to implement part of the contested law by reviewing health insurance rates to see if they should be labeled unjustifiably high. The state also has accepted a federal grant to create a state health insurance exchange.
—-
Arkansas
Number of uninsured: 539,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 19 percent.
Where the state stands: Arkansas decided on a federal-state partnership for its health insurance marketplace. Legislators blocked a bill by which the state would have created its own insurance exchange but have since accepted a grant that will allow it to at least have a role in the federally created exchange.
—-
California
Number of uninsured: 7,209,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 19 percent.
Where the state stands: California has worked to be a model for the health care law and has begun implementing parts of it already, including creating the beginnings of health care exchanges to provide consumers a marketplace to purchase insurance policies starting in 2014. The state has also already banned insurers from refusing coverage for children with pre-existing illnesses and young adults are allowed to stay on their parents' plans through age 26 in California.
—-
Colorado
Number of uninsured: 656,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 13 percent.
Where the state stands: Colorado lawmakers passed legislation in 2011 to set up health insurance exchanges, and a commission is in the process of implementing them. The exchanges are set to start October 2013.
—-
Connecticut
Number of uninsured: About 377,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 11 percent.
Where the state stands: Connecticut has hired staff and a board of directors to begin implementing health care exchanges and have them in place by the 2014 deadline set by the federal law. The state already is allowing people under 26 years old to stay on their parents' health insurance policies, which is part of the federal law.
—-
Delaware
Number of uninsured: Between 100,000 and 110,000 Delaware residents are uninsured, about 11 percent of the state's population.
Where the state stands: Delaware officials are working on a health care exchange. State officials also are accepting public input as they come up with minimum coverage requirements that must be included in health care plans for individuals and small businesses.
—-
Florida
Number of uninsured: 3.85 million Floridians are uninsured, or about 21 percent.
Where the state stands: Republican Gov. Rick Scott ordered the state not to accept federal money for implementing the health care law after he took office last year. Florida has rejected or declined to pursue more than $106 million and has returned $4.5 million. The state has its own health insurance exchanges, mainly for small businesses but without an individual mandate. The state has not implemented an exchange that would meet the requirements of the federal law.
—-
Georgia
Number of uninsured: 1,905,000 state residents are uninsured, or 19 percent.
Where the state stands: Georgia has done nothing to implement a health care exchange. Lawmakers have introduced bills that would either allow or hinder implementation of the law, though none have passed.
—-
Hawaii
Number of uninsured: 97,000 state residents are uninsured, or 7.7 percent.
Where the state stands: Hawaii has been moving at full speed in anticipation the overhaul will be upheld. It joined several states last year in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the law. Gov. Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat, said at the time the law preserved the best elements of Hawaii's long-standing health care statutes. The state also used a $300,000 private grant to create a state job for a coordinator to implement the overhaul. Hawaii plans to develop its own insurance exchange, a key component of the federal overhaul.
—-
Idaho
Number of uninsured: 294,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 19 percent.
Where the state stands: Idaho has not implemented health insurance exchanges, over objections from insurers including Blue Cross of Idaho. The GOP-controlled Idaho Legislature declined to accept federal grants for the project and also balked at putting together a scaled-down state-funded version while awaiting the Supreme Court's decision.
—-
Illinois
Number of uninsured: 1,914,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 15 percent.
Where the state stands: Illinois has received three federal grants to study and start building its health insurance exchange, but the Legislature has failed to pass a law establishing it. Gov. Pat Quinn, a Democrat, has considered an executive order to do that, but now may pursue a federal-state partnership instead.
—-
Indiana
Number of uninsured: 850,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 13.4 percent.
Where the state stands: Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels ordered state agencies to build a framework for a possible exchange, but he has not implemented one pending the Supreme Court ruling. Indiana also has pushed to use its health savings account to help cover an estimated 500,000 who will become eligible for Medicaid in 2014 under the federal health care overhaul, but federal officials denied the request in September, saying it was premature.
—-
Iowa
Number of uninsured: 366,000 Iowa residents are uninsured, about 12 percent of the population.
Where the state stands: The state does not have a law establishing a health insurance exchange, and Republican Gov. Terry Branstad has said Iowa will create a state-based exchange only if the law is upheld. The Republican House Majority leader says the state has already enacted several pieces of the law, including a website that helps residents find insurance, but the state has yet to comply with other requirements.
—-
Kansas
Number of uninsured: 350,000 state residents are uninsured, or almost 13 percent.
Where the state stands: The Republican-dominated state government has been hostile to the 2010 federal law and hasn't moved to set up a health care exchange. Last year, GOP Gov. Sam Brownback's administration returned a $31.5 million federal grant.
Photos: Decision day on health care act
- no previous page
- next
1/3
Popular on CBSNews.com
- Massive tornado hits Okla. 60 Photos
- Mile-wide tornado rips through Oklahoma City area
- Another tornado touches down near Oklahoma City
- Oklahoma tornado carves trail of destruction Play Video
- Firefighter killed in massive Dallas condo fire
- Severe tornado tears through Oklahoma City suburb Play Video
- Record Fla. Powerball winner can't remain anonymous
- Could cop have avoided accidentally killing NY student? 159 Comments
Most Popular
-
01
-
02
-
03
-
04
-
05
Most Shared
Most Discussed
Mandatory by lien holders, auto comp. & collision Ins.
Mandatory truck liability Ins.
Mandatory by lien holders, truck comp. & collision ins.
Mandatory by lien holders, home owner's liability, fire,& thieft Ins.
Mandatory Medicare Ins.
Mandatory Malpractice Ins.
Mandatory workman's comp. Ins.
Mandatory business liability Ins.
Mandatory Social Security Ins.
Mandantory motorcycle helmet laws
These are all mandated because of civic responsability concerns to protect the general population and business concerns.
Hospital emergency room and other medical
costs are a civic responsability. Therefore, medical insurance SHOULD ALSO BE MANDATORY !
I AM TIRED OF BEING OVER TAXED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL BECAUSE OF NON-RESPONSIBILE PEOPLE FREE LOADING AT THE HOSPITAL !!!!!!!!!! GET OFF THE POT FREE LOADERS !!!!
Mandatory by lien holders, auto comp. & collision Ins.
Mandatory truck liability Ins.
Mandatory by lien holders, truck comp. & collision ins.
Mandatory by lien holders, home owner's liability, fire,& thieft Ins.
Mandatory Medicare Ins.
Mandatory Malpractice Ins.
Mandatory workman's comp. Ins.
Mandatory business liability Ins.
Mandatory Social Security Ins.
Mandantory motorcycle helmet laws
These are all mandated because of civic responsability concerns to protect the general population and business concerns.
Hospital emergency room and other medical
costs are a civic responsability. Therefore, medical insurance SHOULD ALSO BE MANDATORY !
I AM TIRED OF BEING OVER TAXED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL BECAUSE OF NON-RESPONSIBILE PEOPLE FREE LOADING AT THE HOSPITAL !!!!!!!!!! GET OFF THE POT FREE LOADERS !!!!
Are you for or against;
1) Dependent Coverage continuing until age 26?
2) 80-85% of premiums must be spent on medical care?
3) the end to Pre-existing Conditions clauses?
4) the insurance company cannot drop coverage?
5) an insurance exchange -- single location for comparing plans?
6) Co-Op insurance plans?
7) A Patient's Bill of Rights including right to appeal decisions?
8) Expanded preventive care -- certain procedures have $0 deductable?
Obama certainly intended it to be as far left-leaning as possible with his latest Kagan appointee - whose complementary-to-Obama purpose, is to weaken America.
How can we persuade Justice Kagan to work toward weakening corporate power and control of our lives, and remove the status of 'corporations having rights as people' instead?
Five of the current justices were appointed by Republican presidents and four of them were appointed by Democratic presidents.
Under the Roberts court from 2005 - 2010, 57.45% of the cases were decided with a leaning towards the conservative ideology leaving 42.55% of the cases having been decided with a leaning towards the liberal ideology.
2010 court decisions saw a 4.65% increase over 2009 in cases decided with a leaning towards the conservative ideology.
Number of uninsured: About 6.2 million, or about 25 percent.
Where the state stands: Texas has not implemented a health care exchange. Texas has joined with other states in challenging the law in court. Gov. Rick Perry, who is vocally opposed to the law, says the state can "deliver health care more efficiently, more effectively and cheaper than the federal government can."
-------
Yes, with 25% of texans uninsured, it appears that gov. perry sure has a better way........NOT!
In Oregon there has been close cooperation between the health care providers, the insurance industry, the feds, the insurance brokers, and everyone else who has any kind of stake in the business. All of those people have worked out a framework that they are all signed on to and that the insurance industry is supporting. And in fact, even if SCOTUS had struck down the act, Oregon announced last year that the exchanges were going to be permanent, going forward, no matter what the Feds did.
The fact that other states have been so behind, and that Oregon is so far ahead, means that the Feds are probably just going to start telling the states that are behind that they need to just copy what Oregon is doing. The insurance companies in particular are not interested in having a patchwork across the nation, they want to duplicate what Oregon is doing everywhere else.
The Oregon governor is a former emergency room physician. he has also been elected 2 terms, then left office, then came back years later and elected again. He knows everyone worth knowing in the business.
If you really want to see what your going to be dealing with in the future in your own state, look at what Oregon is doing.
Then sit back and laugh when you hear Willard try and criticize the federal law. The guy is a total hypocrite and fraud.
Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn't have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said 'hey, a penalty or a tax, either way'. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.
Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — 'comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.' Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can't penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in "national" health-care? Suddenly, it's not national, is it?
Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government's coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases
The law was found to be unconstitutional under the commerce clause, meaning the structure of the law will change. But the implementation of the individual mandate will go through as a tax.
The legislation will change, but it's constitutional to do it. Call it a fee, call it a penalty, call it a tax or call it what it actually is: Mandated insurance premium. It's making people pay for what they get - in a manner that makes it affordable for everyone. It's in the implementation of the law.
If you want to call it a tax and that it's funded by tax dollars, then you have the wrong institution being funded. The health insurance industry will be the recipient of those funds, not the government. Some people would like to say where their tax dollars should go. In this case, they can. Of course, it's not a tax insofar as a standard quid-pro-quo for taxes go. You actually get something more directly tangible for that particular tax.
I'm not saying the implementation is good - there's no public option, after all, which would make it far more affordable - but the insurance companies CAN BE and ARE regulated by the government, so the government can work backwards and regulate it the way it needs to be regulated to minimize the financial impact on those who don't already have insurance.
Finally, you merely put the decision of who can and can't be mandated into the states hands. IF a state population wants to pay for those who don't have insurance, fine. They'll have something to ***** about. The rest of us will pay our way. And what gets me is how many "red states" who are CONSTANTLY harping on welfare and handouts are opting out of making people pay their way. You'd think it would be a right-wing wet dream that everyone pays their own way.
So some states will be more burdened than others, and with fiscal austerity, won't have any money circulating to stimulate their economies and will, eventually, financially implode because there simply won't be any money left to run the state.
It's a win for the states, and the people who give a damn about others.
You little red-staters can go suck a dry rock. You opt not to make your people pay their way, don't ask us liberals who mostly fund your pathetic, cash-strapped states (look up where the flow of federal dollars goes - almost every liberal state gets back fewer dollars than they pay into it and almost every red state gets more in federal aid than they pay into the system) to take up the slack.
It's on you.